I decided to go for three reasons. First, I am a long-time supporter of Linda Duncan’s, having known her long before she was an NDP candidate. In fact, Linda was one of the first people involved in environmental issues that I met after moving to Edmonton. Second, I have become increasingly alarmed by some of the statements made by some of Ms. Duncan’s caucus colleagues with respect to the oilsands and with respect to Alberta. Thomas Mulcair, an MP for the Montreal Riding of Outremont, has referred to the oilsands as “the worst pollution on the planet.” I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Mulcair, and was an unabashed fan of his during his tenure as Quebec Minister of Environment, but statements such as those detract from his otherwise good ideas relating to internalizing the costs of environmental damage on the oil sands (and presumably on other industries as well). Third, and most of all, I was interested to hear how Mr. Layton would handle these issues in launching his national campaign here in Edmonton. I am glad I went, but I am no closer to being an NDP supporter today than I was yesterday. That probably surprises no one.

Since I am mainly environment- and energy-focused, I was interested to see how Mr. Layton would deal with some issues he and his caucus have raised recently. In his morning kick-off speech before loading up the plane for Edmonton, Mr Layton promised to,”stop the subsidies to the big polluters and invest that money to foster the new energy economy.” In his speech last night in Edmonton, you would be forgiven if you thought the oil sands and climate change had disappeared from the agenda. Any discussion of these “big polluters” was absent, and Mr. Layton only made one mention of Mr Harper’s, “environmental record,”, which drew cheers and jeers from the gathered faithful. The climate had clearly stopped changing, perhaps due to earth hour.

The rest of the speech was devoted to health care, daycare, helping poor familes and seniors make ends meet and, somewhat surprisingly, Edmonton’s EXPO bid. I would not have imagined the NDP to be in favour of such events, but I am not surprised that Linda Duncan was a strong advocate for bringing such an event to Edmonton. So, no big surprises, and a few disappointments.

I expect and hope that NDP candidates face some tough questions at the doors of Edmonton voters as to what the party’s platform and vision for Alberta really is. Without anything more than un-funded promises of increased social programs, it will be hard to gain traction in a province that fears taxes almost as much as un-repaired potholes. Albertans should be worried about the prospect of a cap-and-trade system “cracking down” on the province’s industrial sector, while re-distributing revenues to social programs which benefit other regions disproportionately. While the C.D. Howe Institute showed that aggressive GHG policy need not be harmful to Albertans, there are tough questions we should be asking about the design of such a system given the possibility that the NDP and the Liberals could hold the balance of power, along with the Bloc Quebecois (the Liberals are also proposing a cap-and-trade regime this time around, by the way). I hope Albertans will ask some of these questions of the NDP candidates, and I know I will be asking them of Ms. Duncan.

[…] impact on the environment. In a campaign stop in Edmonton this weekend, NDP leader Jack Layton only briefly mentioned the environment, suggesting that he may have been avoiding the issue while in Alberta (he also did […]

I also am hoping that Edmontonians will attempt to uncover what exactly the party’s vision and platform is for the province. As an Edmontonian studying in Ottawa, I have had the opportunity to hear Linda Duncan’s viewpoint and I applaud most of her efforts. I agree, however, that in order for Albertans to be receptive to alternatives, they must be tangible ones and not just sallow promises. In a province as beautifully complex as Alberta, a political strategy that lauds an industry only when it stands before cannot be very effective.

Hi Melissa,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I think we are likely in about the same boat with respect to Linda’s views on many issues. I have always been willing to vote for people who I think will add to the level of debate and discussion in the country, and who I feel represent important views well, even if I don’t share all of the views. I put Linda in that group. That said, I will temper it with a view of the overall party policies and the influence that party is likely to have.

I also agree that “the new energy economy” is a difficult term. I think people are using some pretty fuzzy accounting in a lot of cases. The fundamental reality remains that most new energy sources require subsidies over and above the benefits to the Canadian economy to make them viable, and these subsidies must be paid for from somewhere. If you combine that with a view that we should “use the subsidies we are currently paying to big polluters”, you ignore the important difference between a tax expenditure (i.e. a tax not collected) and a government expenditure (i.e. a cheque).

there is something wrong with this bit of prose <> maybe an over-exuberant cut&paste (?)

I am a bit surprised to find you sliding into ‘pundits with vague political generalizations’ territory, but ok, no worries, I will say that I think it is unfair to keep your political position, whatever it may be, in the bag, statements like “those of you who know my politics” may tend to make this blog into a more-or-less exclusive club – is that what you wanted for it? I didn’t think so but I could be wrong, I was going to twit you for preening in front of Gloria Galloway (!?) of the Globe and Mail (!?) but, after watching it twice decided not to 🙂 you do seem to know the ground

one problem for a politician with deep roots in labour is that reconciling union/environment points of view is difficult (if not impossible), here in Toronto for example the Greenpeace office is in a complex of small office buildings dominated by unions, and you can hear the environmentalists going on about how the ‘great schism’ between labour and the environment has finally been bridged just about every time they open their mouths to speak (events have a tendency towards the halls-for-rent in the aforesaid buildings y’unnerstan) … if wishes were horses beggars would ride

and the easy way out of such a position is to speak from both sides of your face at appropriate times, which is what I have seen our Jackie-boy doing this long time, my daughter lives in Linda Duncan’s riding, I agree with you that Duncan was not elected because she is NDP … possibly some charismatic quality? though I met her and must have missed it somehow

since you have opened the political Pandora’s box so explicity here … I am interested to know where you think people with concerns about the environment can most effectively put their votes? not the Green Party (unfortunately) unless you think that Don Drummond is somehow a green economist with his ‘growth is inevitable’ fol-de-rol 🙂

be well, David Wilson.

PS – a ‘preview’ capability for comments would be helpful for those of us with bad vision, incipient alzheimer’s & unsteady fingers, just a thought …

Sorry to surprise you with my generalizations. My capital-letter politics are undefined, both personally and publicly. I don’t hold a membership in any party, and in fact never have. My small-letter politics tend toward the fiscal conservative, given that I believe in markets not big government. I do however believe that governments play important roles in adjusting market signals through instruments such as carbon prices, sin taxes, etc. I think Andrew Coyne put it best when he said that by most reasonable definitions, I am a socialist as well, since I do believe in publicly provided health care, employment insurance, minimum guaranteed incomes, etc. but I temper this with a view toward again creating the correct incentives to minimize government expenditure while achieving goals.

With respect to Ms Galloway, the fact that I ended up on camera was very accidental, I can assure you. I spent a good deal of time (poorly, it turns out) trying to determine where I could stand in order to minimize the possibility of being on camera, in part to avoid the capital-letter political interpretations that people would make. I found myself out of the view of the television cameras, but standing and chatting with Ms. Galloway, who had recently quoted me in her write-ups on the budget. I could perhaps have declined to answer her questions, but that seemed rude.

With respect to your question about where an environmental vote should go, I hope to be able to get to that over the next little while as parties unveil their platforms. I will likely concentrate more on oil sands and climate policy as those are the issues I know best, but we’ll see what the parties put forward.

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Andrew

PS Not sure if WordPress has a preview capability for comments. I don’t have that functionality for my replies either, so I doubt it is available. If see a blog that has that option, please let me know and perhaps I can see how it is integrated in their site design. Also, re my typo, the error is now fixed. Thanks.